A friend, who by no means supported our incoming president, celebrated Trump’s victory. If I understand correctly, my friend’s position was that the government’s actions would become so ham-fisted and extreme that people would be shocked out of their political lethargy. His desire -again, if I am not misinterpreting- is that activism from the streets is the only thing that can push the political class -coopted by money, no matter the party or persuasion- to find solutions to people’s problems.

There are many ways to take the US’s temperature. One that has appeared frequently in the news is the income-equality gap. This is the fact that a small percentage of the population controls an extraordinarily large amount of wealth. Political environments with income distributions that are considered unfair are recipes for social instability. Or, in the succinct words of a study by Alesina and Perotti that examined the evolution of 70 countries over time: “Income inequality increases social discontent and fuels social unrest”. This graph, from the Institute for Policy Studies, shows average income in the US in 2014. As can clearly be seen, 90% of the population earns considerably less than the rest, with the top 1% receiving a huge advantage. In other words, there is income inequality in the US and, as the study showed, this can lead to social problems.

Yet for people to take to the streets, the economy cannot just be unfair, it must be perceived as unfair. Is this happening? Last February, Pew Research published a survey that demonstrated that most Americans consider the economy to be unjust. According to their article, 65% of the country “say the economic system in this country ‘unfairly favors powerful interests’”. In other words, in the opinion of a majority of Americans, instead of justly providing for average people, the system gives an advantage to those who are close to power.

This understood, while 65% is a majority, the opinion that the US economy is unfair is not shared by everyone. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was more likely to find people who felt that things were going well among those who have enjoyed the benefits. The Pew survey found this particularly to be true among wealthy supporters of the Republican Party: “Republicans and Republican leaners with family incomes of $100,000 or more are more likely than any other income group in either party to say the system is fair to most Americans”. In other words, the conclusions of the Pew survey are that while most Americans feel the economy unfairly favors the powerful, Republicans with above-average incomes consider the system fair.

These were the conclusions in February. Since that time, the Republicans have had important political victories and the incoming administration is being populated by people who are, by any definition, rich and politically influential. One Boston Globe article from December 20th calculated the net worth of the twenty people who so far had been chosen for the new presidential cabinet to be worth at least $13.1 billion. Or, in the article’s words: “more than the annual gross domestic product of about 70 small countries”. While there have long been wealthy people in power, the people that Trump has picked are likely to be the wealthiest we have ever seen.

Income inequality increases social instability and the US income distribution is unequal. In the US there is a majority that already felt the economy was unfair last year. Since that time, a wealthy man has won the presidency and he has peopled his cabinet with wealthy peers. Research has shown that Republicans with a lot of money are more likely to disagree with the majority who feel that the economy is unfair. Taking all of this together, it feels logical to conclude that in the coming years income distribution will continue to be unequal and social instability will therefore worsen. A majority who does not see its opinions reflected in its leaders does not feel represented. This can lead to people taking paths outside the political system to force their voices to be heard. The first step for this is protest.

Yesterday leaders from the NAACP were arrested in Alabama as they protested Trump’s pick for Attorney General. It is interesting to consider the words of the organization’s president as he described their motivations: "As a matter of conscience and conviction, we can neither be mute nor mumble our opposition to Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions becoming attorney general of the United States". In other words, his organization chose public protest -in this case occupying Sessions’s office- as the only alternative to make their voice heard.

Similarly, on the day after Trump’s inauguration there is going to be a large protest in Washington DC. While it has become a meeting point for many causes, the central theme of the protest is focused on women’s rights. Notice how much the words of one of the organizers resemble the quote in the previous paragraph: “We plan to make a bold and clear statement to this country on the national and local level that we will not be silent and we will not let anyone roll back the rights we have fought and struggled to get”. Once again, this is a person who feels that her feelings and opinions are not being reflected by the political class and that protest on the streets is her best recourse.

Judging from the above, it feels likely that our country will see the protests that my friend desired. The outcome of these voices on the streets is uncertain. It will be influenced by how the politicians react. The nature of politics is to marginalize any voices with which the speaker disagrees. Yet the fact that people are taking to the streets means that these voices already feel that they are on the margin. Will further marginalization silence them? Yesterday the NAACP leaders who would not leave Sessions’s office were arrested. This was an example of the use of the law to quiet a protest. It ended a protest, but nobody believes the people who went to jail have changed their opinion. Will the new administration do more of the same? How will the protestors answer?